Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review for QVM
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-14 18:14:36
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Oswin Krause <
Oswin.Krause_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I am going to vote for conditional acceptance under the condition of a
> consensus on the scope of the library(i.e. I am not going to stand in the
> way if the boost community sees it as sufficient if QVM is a pure glue
> between more powerful libraries). If the scope is intended to be broader
> than "glue code" I would like to hear about a roadmap for what is going to
> be added or how the library author envisions its development.
>
In general yours and the comments of others about extending the scope of
QVM seem reasonable, and there seems to be a consensus that this is not a
general linear algebra library, which addresses my biggest concern about
extensions: I don't want the library to lose focus or to become less lean.
Do you think you could come up with a formal list of additional operations
that you think should be part of the library?
Thanks,
Emil